Re: [dmarc-ietf] Email security beyond DMARC?

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Sat, 16 March 2019 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96FA130DF6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 16:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nPiu-DxW5nuX for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 16:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x332.google.com (mail-ot1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED3CE124B0C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 16:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x332.google.com with SMTP id v62so11461877otb.3 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 16:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LdswIZAMDWhkF3sKHIRmGqfLXGbqx4WRyYdlGxrWU2M=; b=IohwmXzIqav0ZVbWsG7anrHAGlZS2+xRxVr9itQY+88B3MCqLNKzeCwppPUvNbur4Z hqTg7kWJCFax4OkWvFc0k0BrpDIj5En6+W62BFlM6DRJ6HDMLP9uJAF9h89CqAj2K0+v Efsct1pjEsQ/Ziy5vWmyOZsRlvXfVxDmJlEFIci86SjMABoCr/CDr3/Hs4qeKGip6euZ CQ/V44C/+6yW6SAFADB1MuKZft9dAqd11Ta2cf+z6N0VpFE920Q4wZyqCkhESrL+GWa1 //b5pOOY702jD54o7q/COdZwEtoO8WxkQy59Obfob+2q8dUS1u3IpwpPphKfi8ADrb0w PgQw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LdswIZAMDWhkF3sKHIRmGqfLXGbqx4WRyYdlGxrWU2M=; b=dINv364KJuH7ZjX1+EiDZr1nBfO0SS38toZ9wll+hBqvTGUx9P6saPoRmHLPgdekuy lGlV+3y7tE2vLgGqm0ntXFRrBLeVNBQWhdSI/vlKKYwwrqI8jlyn+JG19zDh3KELo+ri qmZ2czSjQNx8h83MlCQNQ/SDc+A2ZHQI1o8ScS417dTi+5AtCtD9RXH+q/85KmpSOlUX xUVGfCVnxWuEF5MJbwvqrQCi2mA+9uy26Ulc9Kx/sLe/GsTSEEO3ZeKOoGNtPVVo+rd3 tpAvjNxWFI6/qhZBwHrab/taBUfTslEGXqublRtX7JUI4whwEroyvku+j88VIZj55urV VVsg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXYHALdv9NHRS5Lj2YMb8TV2N4WKYHSuoSHmGbAdtYoP5F47aCH pO0IdRCY2SAx936aphPY3ImntKo0
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwJXpaMirybVbMJghQVrj5WK2HP1KnG0uOlcB7QbJCH7l+gPEB9ND51BSoQt7jpENgdFQj22g==
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7404:: with SMTP id n4mr6647311otk.54.1552777464661; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 16:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:7c1c:e4c:eb22:22e4? ([2600:1700:a3a0:4c80:7c1c:e4c:eb22:22e4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o16sm2517880ote.38.2019.03.16.16.04.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 16 Mar 2019 16:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <1dc451a973a8443a87d37b6e5c41fe38@bayviewphysicians.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04689446-111e-691f-dd34-0a62353ffb92@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 16:04:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1dc451a973a8443a87d37b6e5c41fe38@bayviewphysicians.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/gvu3y_M0NGm6AreHHQJ8b9smh1w>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Email security beyond DMARC?
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2019 23:04:28 -0000

On 3/16/2019 5:56 AM, Douglas E. Foster wrote:
> DMARC represents a powerful concept which can be applied by the 
> receiver, with adjustments, in ways that liberates the receiver from 
> dependency on legitimate senders


Since use of DMARC begins with a record publish by the author domain 
owner, I can't imagine how you think DMARC can be used without 
dependence on legitimate senders.  Nor can I guess what protections or 
scenarios you have in mind.

d

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net